Inerrant Bible, fallible interpretation?

[Hope of Glory]

I believe plenary, verbal inspiration applies to the original documents, but not to any subsequent translation. Personally, I believe that the thoughts have been preserved in that we have sufficient information, when correctly understood, leaves us with the words of God. Do I have chapter and verse to support this? No!

edited for length...

If we spent as much time seeing the positive aspects of the Word of God, as we spend tearing it apart, we would have sufficient information to bring us to a knowledge of the truth.

Cheers,

Jim

I agree completely with your initial statement. There is not a major text (nor is there a single manuscript of which I am aware) that confuses the doctrine of spiritual salvation. Every one of the tells us, "believe (punctiliar) on the Lord Jeus and you will (not may) be saved. (Although, a few of them add the word "Christ" to "Lord Jesus".)

Even the NWT gives you enough information about this one doctrine from which Christian fellowship of common salvation is based.

But, the second part that is posted above, I can only partially agree with. As an analogy, I will use what I do. I make architectural stained glass windows, as well as repair them. If there is a flaw in a tiny piece that is in the middle of the glass or anywhere else (even if it's the first piece I put in), if I repair it without taking it apart, it still is not perfect.

Sometimes, that's all that people are willing to pay for. They do not want to make the sacrifice required to make it perfect.

In order to make it perfect, I have to tear it apart, at least to the point where that piece is, and then rebuild it. Sometimes, I have to take a window completely apart, down to the last piece, and reassemble it, after having repaired the one faulty piece.

Sometimes, our doctrines or our understanding of Scriptures can be the same thing. We have a faulty understanding of something, and there are other faulty doctrines in our lives because of that. Perhaps we need to tear it down, at least to the defective "part" and rebuild from there.

 

[mman]

But doesn't the debate about baptism just prove my point? Both side of the debate can quote Scripture at each other until they're blue in the face, but if it was that obvious, one would have convinced the other long before now.

Also, last time I looked, it was Jesus Who saves me, not the Bible or whether or not I consider it inerrant.

Tell me everything you know about Jesus that you didn't learn from the bible.

How do you know that Jesus saves you?

We will be judged by the words that Jesus spoke (Jn 12:48).

My point on the baptism issue is that though we are divided, we don't have to be. God told us to be of the same mind and judgment (I Cor 1) and that there be no divisions among us. The only way for this to happen is to return to the bible and let us use it in all matters of doctrine.

Since this is true, we can be united on this issue, however, we are not. Whose fault is that? God's? No, certainly not! It's man's fault.

The scripture says that some will "depart from the faith" (I Tim 4:1). The scripture says that some will "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths (II Tim 4:3-4).

Now since this has come to pass, is it God's fault or man's fault that people don't want the truth. It's not God's fault that we don't see the scriptures alike, it's man's fault.

I truly believe that if one is seeking the truth, they will find it. It may take some "seeking", "knocking", and "asking" to "find", have the "door opened" and to be "given". Remember, God is seeking those who dilligently seek Him (Heb 11:6).

 

[stan the man]

Private judgement (part 2)
Here are two reasons why private judgement is not used in practice:

The first reason why private judgement is not used in practice.
This is true even in denominations which try to encourage the development of theological reasoning in their members, such as a conservative Presbyterian tradition my friend attended. He was in a much richer theological environment than any he had previously been in, where there was a much larger ratio of people in the congregation who were theologically alert, yet almost all of them were officers of the church in one fashion or another (pastor, elders, deacons, youth minister), and not even all of the officers were that theologically inclined.

And it is the same in every congregation in Christendom. There is no "church of the theologians" anywhere, and if there were, it should be dismembered immediately so that the theological talent it included could be spread out into theologically deprived groups.

The fact is that the average Christian is simply not theologically inclined. It is a basic fact of church life, and nothing in the history of the world has ever been able to change that. My friends pastor once told him privately, and with regret, "People are sheep. That's why the Bible depicts them as such, and that's why it's so important that they have a good pastor."

This need to be led by a pastor is the "ugly reality" (from a Protestant point of view) that is papered over with the doctrine of sola scriptura. Those in leadership in every single Protestant church know that the average member of the congregation is not, no matter what they do, going to turn into a junior theologian, much less a full, mature Bible interpreter, yet they continue to make a big show of the idea that you can interpret the Bible for yourself and that Scripture should always be your first and final recourse, anything anyone else says being merely a secondary factor, a suggested interpretation for you to take into account as you evaluate Scripture for yourself.

Thus private interpretation remains only a hypothetical, a dream for some idealized Christian world, but not something practiced in this one. Sola scriptura ends up meaning that the average Christian has the right to interpret the Bible for himself, but a right only exercised in any kind of consistent manner by rare individuals.

The second reason why private judgement is not used in practice.
When it is exercised consistently, when the individual really does give his pastor's and denomination's teaching a rigorous analysis, he is likely to find out that his previous theological sloth is not the only barrier to his ability to exercise the absolute right of private judgment. There is a second barrier, for if he comes to the conclusion that the pastor or the denomination is simply wrong about something it considers important, then he is almost always confronted with two choices: Keep your mouth shut about this and don't go advocating your private interpretation in the congregation (that would prompt a crisis of leadership and disturb the tranquillity of the sheep) or simply get out and take your private interpretation somewhere else.

Any layman trying to stay in a congregation and advocate a different position on something the pastor or the denomination considers important will have first subtle and then no so subtle pressure put on him to either keep quiet or leave, and if he will do neither then he will finally be expelled from the body.

And, of course, this is entirely necessary. Every group hangs together by having certain fundamental principles that it agrees upon, that form the basis of its union, and if someone insists on denying one of these basic, shared axioms that hold the group together then he must be expelled lest the group itself break apart—an all too familiar phenomenon given the multitude of church splits in the Protestant world.

The hypocritical thing is not the expulsion of dissenters, but the holding out of the promise of private interpretation, of promoting it by continual rhetorical harping on this theme and by encouraging the faithful to look down their noses at denominations which don't preach this principle, when in reality the promise is: "You have an absolute right to interpret the Scriptures for yourself, but we will cast you out if you disagree with something we consider important."

"Now wait," one may say. "Isn't the charge of hypocrisy a little strong? After all, if a person comes to conclusions at odds with the group he is in, he can always go join another group with views that fit his own."

But the person who has exercised the right of private judgment may respond, "But I don't want to uproot myself from this group of people who I have known and loved over the years, among whom I was raised, found my spouse, was married, had my children, and planned to be buried, and among whom I have all of my friends. The personal cost to me and my family of uprooting will be heavy.

"Furthermore, precisely because I love these people I want them to have the truth, and I believe that in an important matter they are being seriously misled.

"And even if I did choose to uproot and go somewhere else, there may not be any group of people who share my views. Suppose I have decided that speaking in tongues is for today, that Calvinism is true, that children are not to be baptized, and that the sacrament of baptism regenerates. Where am I going to go? There aren't too many Charismatic Calvinistic Baptist churches that teach sacramental regeneration. Any one of those teachings is a major teaching of a different Protestant denominations, but no one denomination holds my views of those clearly important issues. And even if there were a church that taught all of those, there isn't one in my town.

"Should I then start my own church? Noooo, that would be pastorally irresponsible in the extreme. I am just a layman who has exercised his absolute right to private judgment. I am not a Bible scholar; I am not a trained preacher; I am not a pastoral counselor; I have no background in church administration and finance. I would be a complete wash as a church planter.

"So the 'just go someplace where the people believe as you do' suggestion is really a hollow promise for me, and my options are still 'Shut up and don't publicly exercise of your absolute right to private judgment' or 'Be an outsider to us and to whomever else you might go.' Thus it is hypocritical of you to tell me that I have this absolute right which I must relish and treasure and guard—but which you will prohibit me from using right here in my own community.

"Furthermore, you should never speak of other communities which believe different things as if this were a normal or desirable things—a perfectly acceptable 'release value' for the exercise of private judgment. There can only be one set of true doctrines, and Jesus meant for us to have it. The existence of multiple, contradictory, competing sets of Christian teachings is a tragedy, a fulfillment of Paul's prophecy: 'The time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings' (2 Timothy 4:3). That is exactly what you are encouraging me to do—go off and seek teachers who suit my own likings. You are counseling me to fulfill Paul's prophesy of departure from the true teachings of Christ!

"You must never speak of going and joining a group who teaches differently as if it were a matter of indifference and say, 'Well, if you don't like this one, go try that one'! The teachings of Christ are not matters of indifference! If you think you have them then you must do all you can to re-educate me and, if you must kick me out, you must not encourage me to think of going to another denomination as if embracing its teachings—which you claim are false—are a matter of indifference. You are just looking for an easy way out of a difficult pastoral situation! You are trying to cop out on me by pointing me toward another church!"

(to be continued)

 

[Jim1999]

That's sad,,it says, To be continued.....Luther once said,,,,"Stand up..speak up..shut up"

Cheers,

Jim

 

[mcdirector]

That's sad,,it says, To be continued.....Luther once said,,,,"Stand up..speak up..shut up"

Cheers,

Jim

It's also long -- very long.

 

[stan the man]

Some say that my post are sad and long, but last time I checked, I am not forcing anyone to read my posts.

(part 3) continued from part 2

For myself, I would counsel this person to go as easy as he can on his church leaders in his heart, as much as he has been wronged by his church in holding out to him an absolute right which he is prohibited from exercising in practice, and though he is correct in what he has said. For while his pastors are engaged in a hypocrisy, it is a mostly unconscious one.

They must preach absolute right to private judgment to guarantee their own right to interpret and expound the Scriptures in public. They have no other basis for doing this. If they concluded that the average person does not have an absolute right to interpret the Scriptures for himself, then how would they know they have this absolute right? They wouldn't. They would be forced to go join a church led by those who have been entrusted with the task of interpreting the Scriptures, surrender their own positions of authority, and become part of the flock. The shepherds would have to become sheep.

The doctrine of private judgment is thus the thing which justifies their own positions of authority, meaning that they need to keep and expound this doctrine in theory. At the same time, they recognize that they must protect their group from being torn apart by dissent, and so they must prohibit in practice the free and public exercise of this absolute right within their group. They are between a rock and a hard place. They must teach the existence of this right to justify their own leadership of the group, yet they cannot allow others to publicly exercise this right within the group lest it be torn apart. They must only allow for themselves the free exercise of a right which they teach all Christians innately have.

Rather than own up to this horrible truth, which when stared in the face is a grotesque hypocrisy, they avert their eyes from it and simply never think about it. Thus it is an unconscious or at least mostly unconscious hypocrisy. They can spend their time expounding the doctrine of private judgment, knowing that only occasionally will someone in the congregation cause trouble by pertinaciously asserting his right to exercise private judgment. The more normal problem is rather the reverse—getting people to think about Scripture and doctrine at all, and for getting them to do that, expounding the doctrine of private judgment will actually be a help, for if God has entrusted them with the task of interpreting the Scriptures for themselves, then they certainly need to be exhorted to fulfill the task.

Preaching the doctrine of private judgment thus normally serves a constructive role in the Protestant church, as it will normally get the sheep to do devote at least some thought to Scripture and theology and only occasionally will one of the sheep try to exercise his right to private judgment in a consistent, public manner and try to usurp the role of the shepherd. And, of course, those people were just theologically uppity in the first place, right? Otherwise they wouldn't have been such troublemakers and would have either kept quiet or left quietly rather than disturbing the tranquillity of the flock under its shepherd.

Thus Protestant pastors feel comfortable preaching the doctrine of private judgment—and even publicly and pridefully scorning those churches which don't preach it—and seldom or never seriously think about the contradiction between the theory of this doctrine and whether it is actually possible to implement it in practice. Their hypocrisy is unconscious, making it forgivable, not open, deliberate, and malicious.

(to be continued)

 

[Matt Black]

Tell me everything you know about Jesus that you didn't learn from the bible.

Quite a bit actually - from His people, the Church - whether that be through individual Christians whom I know, trust and respect, or on a more corporate level.

My point on the baptism issue is that though we are divided, we don't have to be. God told us to be of the same mind and judgment (I Cor 1) and that there be no divisions among us. The only way for this to happen is to return to the bible and let us use it in all matters of doctrine.

So which side of the debate should 'we' all go for, and why?

 

[Matt Black]

It's also long -- very long.

...and doesn't engage with my earlier post which critiqued part 1. Looks like a cut and paste job to me (yeah, I know, it takes one to know one...!)

 

[D28guy]

same.

The truth that we know as "sola scriptura" is a truth that is so important that it can not be overemphasised.

All one has to do is look at the healthy fellowships that develop in that atmosphere...and then compare that with the spirtual wastelands that always develop in groups who have a "truth gestapo" that "lords it over" their victims.

May God help us all to flee such hellish conditions.

Sadly,

Mike

 

[mman]

Quite a bit actually - from His people, the Church - whether that be through individual Christians whom I know, trust and respect, or on a more corporate level.

So which side of the debate should 'we' all go for, and why?

Actually, you know nothing about Jesus and what he requires apart from the bible. What you may learn from others about Jesus either has the bible as its source or is made up.

As far as the baptism issue, the bible is plain. Men have complicated it, trying to make it say what they want it to say.

Here are some verses dealing with baptism, unedited. What is the logical conclusion of these verses. Keep in mind that these verses are in harmony with the rest of scripture and no other verses negate or void these verses. Verses are stated using the ESV.

Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:35-36 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

Acts 16:30-34 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Rom 6:3-8 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

I Pet 3:20-21 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

What is the logical conclusion of these passages. Do they mean what they say or do they mean something else? If you agree that they mean what they say, then we can be in agreement and united. If not, then we will never all be in agreement.

The only way a person can misunderstand Mark 16:16, is if they want to misunderstand it. It is so simple, you literally need help to misunderstand it. A third grader can read it and understand what Jesus said. When Jesus made that statement was he just kidding? Mistaken? Wrong? Telling the truth?

Why can't we understand Mark 16:16 alike? If we accept it for what is says, we can.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm sure one of the Baptists will be along shortly to contradict you, so I wouldn't want to steal their thunder.

As to methods of knowing Jesus through the Church, there is of course also the Apostolic Tradition...

 

[mman]

I'm sure one of the Baptists will be along shortly to contradict you, so I wouldn't want to steal their thunder.

As to methods of knowing Jesus through the Church, there is of course also the Apostolic Tradition...

I'm sure you are right, but that would just prove my point.

As for the Apostolic Tradition, it is not needed, if it is not recorded in scripture.

II Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Thoroughly equipped means I have EVERYTHING I need in scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

...except that that text isn't a proof text for sola Scriptura; for example, it says Scripture is 'useful', not 'sufficient'. And, again, it can only be 'useful' if interpreted correctly...

 

[D28guy]

same

Matt,

"II Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

"Thoroughly" and "complete" couldnt be more clear.

If we needed more than the scriptures than God could not have said we are "thoroughly" equipped and "complete".

Add to this Christs condemnation of heeding "tradition" over the word of God in Mark 7, and it couldnt be clearer.

"All to well you reject the word of God, that you may keep your tradition."

"Making the word of God of no effect thropugh your tradition which you have handed down"

God clearly teaches that the scriptures are our truth standard, and Jesus forbids holding to tradition over the scriptures, yet we have groups who mock Gods truth concerning the scriptures, while pomoting that wihich God clearly forbids.

Its so very sad,

Mike

 

[mman]

...except that that text isn't a proof text for sola Scriptura; for example, it says Scripture is 'useful', not 'sufficient'. And, again, it can only be 'useful' if interpreted correctly...

Jesus said the words He spoke will judge us (Jn 12:48). Paul said his writings were the commandments of the Lord (I Cor 14:37) and all scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Tim 3:16-17). Peter said that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (II Pet 1:3). Jude said that the faith was once delivered for all time (Jude 3) and we know that faith comes from hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17).

Again, to be thoroughly furnished means that you have everything you need. Unless we use the bible as our only source of authority, we could never be united and fulfill the the instructions contained therewithin.

 

[stan the man]

Private judgement
Protestant churches trundle along, teaching their members that they have an absolute right to interpret the Scriptures for themselves, yet continuing to function as if there is a special class of people within them—a Magisterium—to whom the task of interpreting the Scriptures for the people has really been entrusted. And, for the sake of the survival of the group, the interpretations of this Magisterium have the force of law so that open and public dissenters may be purged for the health of the body.

The typical Protestant church thus unconsciously reinvents the Catholic system that it consciously scorns. It does this out of necessity, since there is simply no way to maintain an organized, healthy group which works in harmony without having someone with the authority to determine what the group is going to do and to expel those who won't go along. You cannot have a classroom, a work crew, a social club, or a nation without someone with that kind of authority, and you certainly cannot have a church without one. Someone in any group must be able to say, "This is what the group is going to do" and "If you won't do it and will continually publicly oppose it, then you cannot be part of the group. You must leave the classroom, work crew, social club, society, or church."

Since the New Testament clearly indicates that Jesus intended us to have organized churches—the claims of the non-denominational "house church" movement not withstanding—he clearly indicated for someone within these churches to have that kind of authority.

Thus we read in the New Testament of evangelists (bishops) and presbyters (priests) and deacons. We read of how the deacons are to assist the higher leaders and relieve them of duties which would take them away from the word of God and prayer (Acts 6:2-4). We read of how the presbyter-priests are to labor in teaching and administrating (1 Timothy 5:17). We read of how the evangelist-bishops (2 Timothy 4:5) are to appoint (1 Timothy 5:22, Titus 1:5) and then discipline the presbyters, rewarding those who "rule well" (1 Timothy 5:17) and openly rebuking those who persist in sin (1 Timothy 5:20). And, most importantly, we read the direction to the laymen to "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority" (Hebrews 13:17) for they "are over you in the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 5:12).

Thus Jesus provided for his Church's needs, he gave shepherds for his flock. "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ . . . so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:11-14).

Because of his Church's needs, because people would have been tossed about by every wind of doctrine, unsure what to believe and often falling into error, God provided teachers. The average person isn't supposed to do it all alone. He is supposed to have a teacher. When we see God fully in the kingdom then the promise will be fulfilled that "no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord" (Jeremiah 31:34).

That New Covenant promise is yet to be fulfilled, but for now Christ gave that "some should be . . . evangelists, some pastors and teachers," and the expressed purpose of this was that "we may no longer be . . . tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine."

Christ thus has established a Magisterium—a teaching authority—in his Church, as even Protestants recognize, for they have pastors and teachers who they proclaim to be called by God to these roles.

These Protestant leaders read the Bible. They know all about these verses. It is clear to them as to everyone else that God intended there to be teachers in his Church, people who would teach in God's name and who were called by God to do this. Thus they know, because the Bible says it, that there are to be people in their positions; they simply never think through the implications of this and fail to notice the cognitive dissonance it generates with their doctrine of private judgment.

I think there is a inefficiency of the Protestant magisteriums. Christ clearly intended there to be a teaching authority, a Magisterium operational in the Christian community, and both Catholic and Protestant communities have them. The difference is that Catholics are open and acknowledge the teaching authority as an entity, while Protestants tend to downplay it and minimize it because of their doctrine of private judgment.

This kind of ignoring a function one is performing leads to bad consequences, just as any inattentive exercise of authority does, and as a result the Protestant community suffers.

Because the Catholic Church is open about the role of the teaching authority in the Christian community, it has thought through the issue, has a much better conscious understanding of it, and so administers the role much better. The Catholic Magisterium, because it is aware that its decisions are authoritative and bind the consciences of believers so they will not be tossed to and fro by doctrines, is very cautious and careful when it speaks. It uses very precise language and makes very careful, narrow pronouncements on an issue.

By contrast, because they are exercising magisterial authority in a largely unconscious, unreflective manner, the Magisteriums in Protestant churches tend to be much less measured in their pronouncements, and pastors in Protestant churches often teach in broad brushstrokes, without careful reflection and without stating important qualifiers, and tell their people they must believe as revealed by God some interpretation which merely seemed like a good idea to the pastor.

 

[Eric B]

You cannot have a classroom, a work crew, a social club, or a nation without someone with that kind of authority, and you certainly cannot have a church without one. Someone in any group must be able to say, "This is what the group is going to do" and "If you won't do it and will continually publicly oppose it, then you cannot be part of the group. You must leave the classroom, work crew, social club, society, or church."

Since the New Testament clearly indicates that Jesus intended us to have organized churches—the claims of the non-denominational "house church" movement not withstanding—he clearly indicated for someone within these churches to have that kind of authority

"That kind" of authority? You forget where Jesus also moderated this with the statement ""You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant [FONT=Century Schoolbook, Rockwell, Serifa, Georgia][of all][/FONT]:[FONT=Century Schoolbook, Rockwell, Serifa, Georgia] [/FONT]Just as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life as a ransom for many". (Matt. 20:25-8). Yes, they were to guard against error, but they were never to be the highly "professional" dominating state-run organization they became. This goes against what Jesus said, and once again, you cannot claim that is the "apostolic tradition" just because your Church can be traced back to then.

You have a point about the Protestants having their own kind of "magisterium", but the problem both they and the Catholics have is the association of this "magisterium" and the "corporate Church" in general in terms of legal "corporations" or state backed governments led by professional "executives" in the first place. That is why the organization splintered into thousands when the first one was found to have become corrupt. The church became all about corporate organizations, and if you don't like one, just form another. They were ALL power bases, anyway, with the leaders profitting monetarily as well as socially. You can't blame the Protestants, because it was the Catholics who started it. That's why the House Church movement is much closer to the original Church.

Looking at the Church as a worldly organization only, this is why you cannot believe that the Catholic Church could have gone into error, so that "the gates of Hell would not prevail". so no matter what it teaches, it must be the truth, and if you can't find it in scripture, it must be a separate body of "oral tradition", and even if it outright contradicts scriptures, that's because only the apostolic tradition knows how to interpret them right. You earlier quoted Timothy, about the people with the itching ears who demand teachers to preach to them fables. Paul was writing about what was occuring in his day, but 1500 years later. Paul or Peter also mentions leaders coming in to "make merchandise of you" (i.e. control), and in Acts, that after his departure "savage wolves" would come in, "not sparing the flock". 3 John then mentions leaders coming in "desiring preeminence", and expelling true Christians. Then historians all note that the Church drastically changed over the next 100 years after the apostles. So your claim of some single "magisterium" and organization that must be infallible for the gates to not have prevailed just isn't as solid as you think it is. The organization did go corrupt, but then it was never ordained by God in its later state, to begin with. But the true will of God remains preserved in scripture, despite men's continuing interpretations of it and vyng for control.

You;re posting all of this stuff is trying to bring everyone under control of some unquestionable human authority (in God's name), but you had that for over a thousand years, and it was disastrous. Why not submit yourself to God, instead of trying to subject others under control of your Church?

 

[genesis12]

This has always kind of bugged me: the Christians who insist on Biblical inerrancy are often also those who deny that there is any kind of infallible teaching authority to interpret the Bible. So what's the point? What's the point of having an infallible Bible if the best we poor humans can come up with is a fallible interpretation?

1 Corinthians 2:9-14. Amen. raise:

 

[stan the man]

Private judgement
This is especially problematic in less intellectual denominations where the pastors are not given an academic training that teaches them the importance of nuance and qualifiers in teaching. For example, the man under whose ministry my friend first became a Christian often spoke of how he had grown up in an Assembly of God church, which was one of twelve in that town which had split off of an original, root Assembly of God church in town. The splits had been over tiny matters that were presented as major doctrinal divides. One split was caused when people began teaching that it was a sin to drink coffee. Another was caused when a teaching arose that one should not wear a tie. A third arose over the issue of whether one should wear cuffs on one's pants. In fact, the man's father was the pastor of the "no tie" Assembly of God church in that town.

All of this is stuff the Catholic Church Magisterium would never put up with, yet the Magisteriums of these Pentecostal churches not only put up with this nonsense, but made church-dividing issues out of them, and because people pertinaciously asserted their right to privately interpret the oracles of God, congregation-rending splits developed. Because of the absolute right of private judgment, coupled with the knowledge that you could always pull up stakes and start your own church, one original, unified congregation was split into thirteen competing bodies trying to steal sheep from each other.

Now, most Protestant Magisteriums would also not put up with the kind of stuff that happened there, but they do put up with stuff they shouldn't, and even split churches over things that they themselves acknowledge are not matters of doctrine. Sometimes a church will split over the question of whether a new building should be built, or whether a building fund is being managed properly, or whether the new building is in the right location, or has the right architecture, or has the right color carpeting, or is targeting the right socio-economic group in the community. Sometimes a popular junior pastor or even choir director will get mad at the senior pastor, start going somewhere else, and take half the congregation with him (in fact that happened when the choir director left what had been the largest Protestant church in my home town, a church which happened to be Southern Baptist and had several hundred members).

When my friend was in the early stages of his research, the full import of Jesus' commands concerning Church unity hit him for the first time, and he began to agonize over the state of his current denomination when was the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The PCA's sister denomination is called the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), and the two subscribed to the same edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, meaning they had the same teaching standard, yet they remained apart. The PCA thought the OPC was too stuffy; the OPC thought the PCA was too progressive. The PCA thought the OPC was too bureaucratic, forming committees for every little thing; the OPC thought the PCA was too lax about church government. Yet even though the two churches had the same doctrinal beliefs, differing only in matters of style, administration, and emphasis, they were making no motions toward and would resist motions toward union with each other. He thought, "How on earth can we, in these two denominations that have the same teaching standard, claim to be following Jesus' teachings on Church unity if we can't even unite with each other!"

Those two denominations were willing to stay separate, in flagrant violation of Jesus' teachings on visible Church unity, over matters that were no longer even doctrinal, but had to do with style, administration, and emphasis. The reason, of course, was the "If you don't like it, start your own church" mindset that in this context became an "If it would be inconvenient to merge, stay separate" mindset. This was the trickle down effect of what was originally a principle that advocated church splitting over doctrinal matters. Now it had festered and rotted until it became a willingness to split over non-doctrinal matters, and a corresponding unwillingness to merge if it would be inconvenient due to non-doctrinal matters.

For too long the Protestant world had advocated a principle which suggested that the solution to bad teaching was schism, and now it had mutated into a form that the suggested solution to administrative problems, policy disagreements, and inconvenience was schism as well. As he meditated on these matters, it became more and more obvious that such matters could never be allowed to govern decisions of whether or not Christians should affiliate. He concluded that Christ's solution to bad teaching was not schism, but good teaching.

Yet because the practice of going into schism had become so pandemic in Protestant circles, it had generated a host of competing Magisteriums which are totally out of control and are willing to split churches over tiny doctrinal matters (as with the Assembly of God ones mentioned) or project and personality matters (as with the Baptist church mentioned) or to refuse to even attempt to obey Christ's teachings on Church unity due to the inconvenience involved (as with the Presbyterian churches mentioned).

Each group has its own Magisterium—its own teaching authority—but because they are rooted in the doctrine of private judgment, they encourage splits and end up operating in a capricious, careless manner in rank disregard for Christ's teachings and they actually encourage the tossing of believers to and fro with every wind of doctrine. They are the ones making the winds of teaching. Through their teaching, publishing, and publicity mechanisms they, in effect, have aimed big, doctrinal snow-blowers at the Christian world, trying to sweep as many as possible into their own sphere of influence. By generating the winds of doctrine they are acting counter to the purpose for which Christ established a Magisterium in the first place, which was to prevent doctrinal confusion and give the ordinary people safety and security in their beliefs.

My friend thus was forced to conclude that the principle of private judgment—an inherent and indispensable part of Protestantism—led inescapably to the formation of multiple competing Magisteriums, which defeat the purpose of having a Magisterium in the first place. Since "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33), he cannot be the author of the doctrinal chaos in the Protestant world, and since this chaos is rooted in the very essence of Protestantism itself, due to the principle of private judgment, God cannot be the author of Protestantism.

He did not found his Church on principles guaranteed, by their very nature, to breed chaos and confusion. Instead, he gave that "some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers . . . so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine." He set up a Magisterium precisely in order to prevent the doctrinal confusion caused by a multitude of people expounding their private judgments in public.

 

[Eric B]

Read my post above. Once again, what you are describing is the whole "organization/government" run by "professional executives" mindset, that the Catholic Church started. That was what started this "wind", and confusion, and for over a thousand years, she was able to quell most dissension, but it got so out of hand, that it burst out in the Reformation, and there, the ball began rolling.
Under your magisterium system, we would have all the same dissenters, breaking off and starting their own groups, yet the original group would boast of being the "true" Church based simply on it being the corporate organization or government the others broke off of, and it itself couldn't have possibly gone astray (necessitating the dissension in the first place) because Christ said the gates of Hell would bever prevail against "The Church" (once again defined as a particular legal/civil corporation).
As I have always said, your system only gives the false appearance of "unity" by simply denying salvation to those not members of your organization.Whoever is willing to just follow and be tossed one direction by its wind of doctrine, that's what you want.

Yes, Christ did not found his Church on principles guaranteed to breed chaos and confusion, but that men would themselves push it that way does not prove tyour group is the true one, but rather your group is at the center of the confusion, being the mother of it.